Julius Caesar poses these big questions:

(This play has particular applications to questions that arise in democracies.)

1. There is a problem inherent in Cassius' reasoning (and typical of reasoning in a democracy). Caesar is "just a man." Does that mean that he's just any man? Are all people "equal"?

2. Is violence in defense of democracy or justice or law desirable (meaning "does it work to protect what you are trying to protect?")? (The Iraq War comes to mind, but also things happening within the U.S.- violent groups who act to "protect" what they see as threats to our democracy.) Are charismatic individuals enough of a danger to a democracy that violence might be warranted? (We have 2-term limits for Presidents.)

3. Where should we draw the line between loyalty to the state vs. loyalty to family/friends? (Consider the case of the unabomber's brother.)

4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of idealists (if Brutus is representative of this group)?

Journal Questions: While you are reading, mark every passage where someone gives a character sketch of a major player (Brutus, Cassius, Caesar, Antony) or where one of the major players reveals something about his values, motives, or way of thinking. Especially compare how the comments by the person match what others say about him.

Act I (Answer question #1; question #2 is for class discussion)

1. In this particular act, EITHER compare what Caesar says about Cassius (pp. 1539-40) with what Cassius reveals about himself in key speeches to Brutus (p. 1537-38) OR compare what Cassius says about Brutus in his soliloquy (p.1541-42) with what Brutus reveals about himself (pp. 1537, 1539). [Optional: Why does a successful revolution need people like Brutus? Why does it need people like Cassius?]

2. How does the first scene define the political atmosphere in a way that will comment on subsequent political events? This play is about how political power works. (Consider what the two tribunes say to the people and what we find out on p. 1541 about them.)

Act II

1. Cassius and Brutus argue over the best way to deal with Antony. Who would you side with and why? Why does Brutus win? (Act III will tell us who was right- we're interested in whose judgment is better and why and in whether other incidents support this conclusion.)

2. This is a play about political power and how it works. Consider what the scenes with Portia and Calpurnia bring to our attention and make us think about that we would not otherwise notice or think about?

3. What reasoning causes Caesar to change his mind about going? (Critics argue over whether Caesar is portrayed as a tyrant or a hero.)

Act III

1. What are some of the choices Shakespeare makes leading up to and dramatizing the murder (things people say and stage actions the audience sees) that affect audience sympathy one way or another (for the conspirators or for Caesar)?

2. Brutus' reasoning in letting Antony speak reveals something about himself that makes him both desirable as a leader and limited as a leader- what?

3. Does what Antony says and does in this act bear out what has been said about him? What "type" is he, compared to the type Brutus represents and the type Cassius represents?

4. Although both Brutus' and Antony's speeches are rhetorically superb, Antony's seems more effective- why? What are some of Antony's most effective devices and why are they so effective?

5. Why put in the scene of Cinna the poet? What would you guess about Shakespeare's view of democracy, judging by this play so far?

Act IV (reading questions: no journal due)

1. This play is highly ironic. For instance, the conversation at the beginning of IV provides quite a different perspective on the nature/purpose/effect of this assassination from what we had expected, given Brutus' ideals and Antony's words to the assassins and his eloquent funeral oration

2. Why include the scene with the generals quarreling? (Possible lines of thought: perspective on the characters of these two principals? Perspective on the meaning of the assassination? There might be other possibilities.)

3. Would you argue that the double mention of Portia's death is a mistake or something meaningful?

Act V (journal due: answer question 2, 3, or 4)

1. What information is provided in the play as to whether it is smart or not smart to fight the battle where/when they do? How does this relate to the characters and judgments of Cassius and Brutus? (This is a reading question- don't write your journal on it.)

2. Who is the more effective leader, Brutus or Cassius? (Both have strengths and both weaknesses, as effective leaders.)

3. What is interesting/strange about the death of Brutus? The death of Cassius? (Then think about what insight we get from their being handled this way.)

4. Although the characters themselves do not change at all in the course of this play, Shakespeare provides information about them in subsequent acts that causes many in an audience to modify their first impressions of them. Consider what different facets of each come to light in the course of the play. These characters demonstrate to an audience that people can be very complicated-that people are not black and white (for instance, being a good friend and also an opportunist are not necessarily at odds with each other). Write on either Cassius or Antony. For Cassius, consider what different facets come to light in the latter half of the play (his interchanges with Brutus after the murder and at other points in IV and V and also what other characters say about him toward the end). Are there aspects to his character that had not been apparent? For Antony, compare what his soliloquy late in III implies about his motives (shortly before his famous speech to the commons) with what evidence from IV